I start this issue writing about grass. This is Metaphoria
after all. And Metaphoria is about metaphor. No. It is not about the
illegal weed, marijuana. It is about the other grass weeds: rye, clover, alfalfa. It is
about the grass we see everywhere, the grass we grow and the grass we cut.

Isn't it amazing how much time we spend on our lawn!
We seed it, water it, fertilize and help it grow, only to cut it. Then, we make it
grow only to cut it again. Grass doesn't grow in places where we want it to grow
and, it does grow in places where we don't want it to grow. It seems that grass
always requires our attention.

Grass is a wonderful ego symbol. Just as lawns
demand tending to, so does the ego. When we ignore either, we become saddled with tall
weeds, difficult to manage and difficult to ignore. Without our watchfulness the
lawn becomes a hay field. Cutting by conventional means is much more difficult. So too,
the ego becomes an overgrowth, a Hey!-field exhortating special care in order to be
cut down to size. Grass and ego love to grow to oversized proportions. Each thrives,
maintaining reasonable size and good health when cut down.

The Encyclopedia Brittanica states, "the
complexity of the vegetative cover of natural grassland is much greater than it appears to
the casual observer. The many plants occupying grasslands may exhibit as much variety
within a square yard as is present in an acre of forest." The ego as well, is much
more complicated than we believe. Add to that the infinite number of disguises the ego may
take and it is no wonder that we often cannot tell apart weeds from grasses, native
wildflowers from imported opportunistic plant life; the many voices in our mind.

Differing Nature

At the start of writing this section, there are
5,866,280,224 people on planet Earth with 8,686,938,566 acres of useable land - according
to the constantly updating IDRC population and resources clock on the World Wide Web
(we'll get back to this statistic later). There is much diversity on this planet, as there
is in the United States. Very few of us actually know the scope of the diversity. Rarely,
can any of us accurately portray the scope of that diversity. JeanneE read to me the
following from the August, 1996 issue of Comic Relief - "Average percentage by
which white Americans overestimate the Latino, Asian-, and African-American populations:
100. Average percentage by which members of these groups overestimate their own
populations: 100."

The problem between people is not the differences
between the groups to which they perceive they belong but rather the personal
phenomenon of difference itself. The definition of the term difference from
Webster's Dictionary is: "the quality or state of being different; an instance of
differing in nature, form, or quality; a characteristic that distinguishes one from
another or from the average; the element or factor that separates or distinguishes
contrasting situations; distinction or discrimination in preference; disagreement in
opinion: DISSENSION; an instance or cause of disagreement; the degree or amount by which
things differ in quantity or measure; a significant change in or effect on a situation.
Difference: to make different."

Science uses quantitative analysis to come to
conclusions based upon changes of outcome produced by small differences of single
variables. All things being equal between the control and the experimental group, a single
alteration may produce a noticeable change. Quantitative analysis relies on
difference. It relies upon measurable difference. Consider the following table from
the U.S. Census bureau.

Total

Both sexes

Male

Female

ALL GROUPS

227000000

110053161

116492644

White

188371622

91685333

96686289

Black

26495025

12519189

13975836

American Indi

1364033

673517

690516

Eskimo

42162

21525

20637

Aleut

14205

7186

7019

Japanese

700974

320941

380033

Chinese

806040

407544

398496

Filipino

774652

374191

400461

Korean

354593

147825

206768

Asian Indian

361531

187083

174448

Vietnamese

261729

135640

126089

Hawaiian

166814

82256

84558

Guamanian

32158

16583

15575

Samoan

41948

21249

20699

Other

6758319

3453099

3305220

If we continue with a breakdown of an individual
group, we can further quantify it. The Samoan populations for example can be broken into
religious groups: Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, etc. Each religious group in turn can be
broken into conservative, orthodox, reformed, etc. We can continue for quite some time
arriving at many silly levels of segregation. No matter how small the segregated group
becomes, because the individual members are not identical, there will remain at least one
quantifiable difference. This is the nature of quantification.

Demographic analysis is useful for monitoring
trends, predicting future events and planning for change. The analysis does little to
improve our understanding of and tolerance for each other. It may actually foster just the
opposite. People, for the most part, are not scientists. A misunderstanding of the purpose
and process of scientific quantitative analysis may actually foster highlighting
the variance among people. As a result of our natural desire to explain, to quantify, and
our learned response to distinguish threat through separation, we actually look for
traits, actions, behaviors that separate us. This occurs even in groups that have much
more in common with each other than not. The lack of knowledge and the fear of the unknown
emphasize Webster's last definition of difference: to make different.

The extent to which we see each other as different
is a consequence of the fear we maintain inside. It is the acceptance of the concept of
difference as a focus in our life that gets in the way of recognizing that across the
spectrum of human life on this planet sameness is more common amongst us than are
differences. We are trained from an early age to notice those qualities that separate us.
That need not be.

The Politics of
Separation

Who can forget the infamous "Flag Burning
Issue"? The issue resurfaces from time-to-time. It is a divisive issue brought out to
maximize effect, that is, to polarize the people. It deliberately focuses attention on the
politics that pit family member against family member, friend against friend. The flag
burning issue draws lines between those who see it as a First Amendment right and those
who believe flag burning should be prohibited through a Constitutional amendment. The
orchestration of the flag burning issue creates an emotional dichotomy between people that
masks the real issues that require attention. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the
flag burning issue, abortion, draft dodging, or some other separating topic makes its way
into public consciousness whenever the people come close to learning the truth, whatever
the truth happens to be. It is the classic divide-and-conquer strategy and is most
successful when it is met with the ego response of reaction and attack.

During the third weekend in August, our family drove
to the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont where we attended The Bread and Puppet Domestic
Resurrection Circus. Bread and Puppet is a free outdoor pageant using giant
puppets performing mythical and political commentary. The Theater bakes and freely
distributes free slices of sourdough rye bread, baked in outdoor clay ovens typical of
Quebec. Peter Shucman of New York City founded The Bread and Puppet Theater in
1962.

Twenty-seven thousand people lined the hills of
Glover, Vermont. We paid tribute to human diversity, to the differences inherent in the
members of the same human species. Bread and Puppet celebrates the glory of human
spirit. Our ten-year-old son, Dylan, commented that "Bread and Puppet is the
first place that I have gone to where the people did not call me a girl." At Bread
and Puppet, it simply does not matter if one's features are masculine or feminine, or
whether one is gay or straight. Likewise, it does not matter whether people's hair is
short, long, skinhead, Mohawk, purple, clean cut, dreadlocked, twisted, kneaded or
braided. These are the adjectives of description. They need not become the adjectives of
division. We are all better off emphasizing the verbs that unite.

Until Bread and Puppet, I had almost
forgotten the wonderful feeling possible when surrounded by people who see each other as
the same tribe, as family, as humanity. Amidst the huge crowd, with the backdrop of
constant drumming, I had the feeling that I had come home. I made a commitment that
weekend to make a yearly pilgrimage to Bread and Puppet. Next year will be the
twentieth annual Bread and Puppet Circus.

The next day, my son and I attended an event that
was in sharp contrast to the Bread and Puppet experience. I have a fascination for
airplanes. Out of curiosity for the technologically sophisticated, we attended the Rutland
Air Show. My naïveté was highlighted by the emphasis on warplanes and the
impersonal nature of the crowd. While everyone greeted us as family, brothers and sisters
at Bread and Puppet, the air show brought not one face-to-face greeting, not one
smile of affection, not one gesture suggestive of welcome. On the contrary, the war
machinery on display contributed to an air of ominous distance.

Separation Machinery

War is a reactionary action, the failure to resolve
differences. It is the ultimate conclusion to the politics of separation. Under the guise
of protecting the American Flag from desecration, the politics of separation would have
the First Amendment right of freedom of expression through burning abridged. Yet, the
separating war machinery condones and makes possible the parachuting of a forty-eight-foot
flag which falls onto the ground. The latter is seen as an act of patriotism while the
other considered "obscenity."

During the hour or so that we attended the air show,
I wondered if any of the people there seriously thought about the Huey helicopters,
or the A10 jet that brilliantly executed turns at four-hundred miles per hour? While I
admit to marveling at the sight of thousands of pounds of steel, chromium and titanium
maneuvering at close to the speed of sound, I was dumbfounded by the lack of recognition
that a death machine was in our midst. Did the mention of "kill potential" or
"anti-tank" weaponry register as murder and slaughter.

Does not the mere existence of the weaponry, the
staggering cost, complexity and creativity of its production highlight the necessity of
fabricating an enemy somewhere, someplace that is different than us? I can only
imagine what the world might be like if the resources of the technology of death were
changed to the technology of bringing people together.

I commented to a close friend, "I learned a lot
today. I learned where my people are and they are not here." Possibly, some day these
people, as well as all people can experience, at least once, the beauty and inclusiveness
of the Bread and Puppet experience. Perhaps, if each of us see all people
as our people we need not feel that way.

What is it in the human condition, in education or
upbringing that gravitates an individual toward the politics of separation versus the
politics of inclusion? As a child, I remember my father laughing at the absurdity of
television programs such as Combat. My father talked to me about being a soldier in
the Polish Army in Northern Africa during World War II. I would not call my father a
Pacifist. This man, with his conservative values, his experience on the battlefield, had
proof enough that war was folly. Instead of glory he saw death. Not only did he not want his
son to go to war, he did not want anyone's son to go to war. Perhaps, I would
feel differently had he and I not had those conversations? That is why my son Dylan and I
do have these unpleasant, necessary talks.

Big Boys Clubs

Over the past two weeks the Republican, Democrat and
Reform Parties held their national presidential conventions. Our daughter, Guinnevere,
commented that the parties seem to act like little children with a need to belong. Each
flies a flag (the donkey, the elephant, the eagle). Each takes the opportunity to exclude
the other by trying to prove to the country that their form of inclusion is
superior to the other. The practice of selective inclusion is a collective ego mask for
exclusion by virtue of projected moral and ethical superiority-over. John O'Brien, Marsha
Forest, Jack Pearpoint, Shafik Abu-Tahir & Judith Snow in The Ethics of Inclusion suggest
three common delusions. They are:

"Inclusion means that everybody must love everybody else or 'We
must all be one big, happy family!' "

"Inclusion means everyone must always be happy and satisfied, or
'Inclusion cures all ills.'

"Inclusion is the same as friendship, or 'We are really all the
same.' "

The Republican Party's "Big Tent"
philosophy is doomed to failure because the underlying tenet is the antithesis of
inclusion. The philosophy of burying differences in the name of unity represses the
discontent and dislike that people in the party feel for each other. Not allowing Pat
Buchanan, Pete Wilson or others to speak, in an attempt to preserve the appearance of a
united front, is counterproductive repression. Sooner or later the facade will fall apart.
Diversity not celebrated but orchestrated into an illusion is a catalyst for reaction.

There may have been excitement at the Republican
Convention, but there was little genuine crying, screaming, laughing, hugging. There was
little reveling in the emotion of human common ground. Instead, there was the appearance
of unity especially during moments of attack and character assassination.

The Democratic convention was a little better. If
nothing else, the political operatives recognized that celebrating diversity through the
acknowledgement of differences promotes an atmosphere of belonging that goes beyond the
superficial membership in a clubhouse. Although parading differences may be a tool of
disingenuous inclusion, I could not imagine the Republican party feeling comfortable with
the vast array of differing peoples assembled at the Democratic Convention. I believe the
Democrats recognize, for all their emotional manipulation, that change is necessary and
that change is inclusion. Conversely, inclusion is change. Inclusion is Rosa Parks
being welcomed on the bus. The Democratic Convention gave all appearances that Rosa would
be welcome in the front seat sitting there along with all her friends.

Rugged Individualism

Political campaigns are built around rhetoric,
sound-bites and for the most part, non-issues. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been criticized
for her book, It Takes A Village by the Republicans who contend that, "It
Takes a Family." Operating from the premise that individualism and hard work can
accomplish anything, some Republicans conclude that there are no limits to what we can
have, to who we can be and to what we can do. If we take responsibility for our own lives
and act, we can have it all. Sounding much like a commercial, the philosophy of
rugged individualism, a subset of the politics of separation, teaches that we neither want
nor need to give or get help from others. We can go it alone. The difference between a
liberal and conservative, they say, is that the conservative has his hands in his own
pockets. This is social and political survival of the fittest. Surely, the thinking goes,
the destitute, the impoverished, the homeless, the uneducated and the poor, by not
adopting rugged individualism, have brought upon themselves their own misery and plight.
They have chosen to be the way they are, the thinking goes.

A Village Experience

In 1991, our family of four took up residence in
Boston Childrens Hospital. We lived there for ninety-three days. Two of us underwent major
surgery. A kidney was passed from me to our son, Dylan. We as individuals did what
we had to do. It was however, the greater village that helped make success possible.

The Communities of Wells, Manchester, Vermont and
Granville, NY helped support the family through contributions. Two community members took
care of our daughter at times that she was unable to be with us. Friends drove back and
forth from Vermont to Boston with mail, letters, family, food, etc. A neighbor cut our
lawn. At no charge, the local fuel utility installed a backup heating system for our home
which at the time only had wood and coal heat. Our best friends were at our bedside to
help relieve stress, offer support, take care of us. My employer and colleagues at the
Burr and Burton Seminary community - the faculty, staff, teacher's association and
administration - came to our aid and support. The First Unitarian Church of Rutland,
Vermont offered financial and moral support. Family members came to our aid and bedsides
as well. All of these people, collectively, are the village.

Scott Bradfield in his book, What's Wrong with
America, calls Americans "rowdy, self-centered, and smugly superficial, hell-bent
on individualism at all costs. We prefer sitcoms to Masterpiece Theatre, beer (not even
good beer) to wine, common image to distinctive substance." The members of the
village that I've described are far from that. They are unique individuals who recognize
that that which binds us together is far more plentiful than that which separates. We have
more in common than the politics of separation suggests and there are more of us than
rugged individualists would like to believe.

The Numbers

As I draw this issue to conclusion, I revisit the
World Population Clock and find that the planet's population is now 5,869,194,832 and
counting up. The useable productive land is 8,686,811,104 and counting down. Since I began
writing this issue 2,912,608 new human beings joined the Global Village while 127,462
acres of productive land has been lost. It is clear that if the almost six-billion people
of Earth subscribe to the philosophy of rugged individualism, there would be little room,
tolerance nor future for any of us. In 1968, Robert Kennedy said,

What we need in the United States is not
division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United
States is not violence or lawlessness, but love and wisdom, and compassion toward one
another, and a feeling of justice towards those who still suffer in our country, whether
they be white or they be black.

To that I would add, regardless of who or what they
be, for if one of us suffers, we all suffer.

Back to Grass

I started this issue using grass as metaphor for
ego. I suggest that the politics of separation is akin to the overgrown lawn. What lies
below is covered by the tall weeds of ego divisiveness and fear. We are all there in the
microcosm of that small patch of grass. With a little attention and pruning the cornucopia
of what grows below becomes visible. It is the interdependence and symbiosis of life forms
that keeps the lawn healthy. The same is true for our planet. With more and more people
sharing less and less land, it is more true now than ever before.

Quotations

What I often do is imagine myself on my death
bed...all the dreams I've had in my life are going to come bubbling up and I'll have to
answer to them: Why I did them and what I didn't attempt? 'The two things I want to be
able to say is I've experienced what it's like to be a human being which is really a
profound, big thing. The second thing is it would make it easier for me to die, when the
time comes if I know that by my being here, that other people had a little better time or
it was easier for them.

William Elliott

Within us, the people of the United States, there is
evident a serious and purposeful rekindling of confidence. And I join in the hope that
when my time as your President has ended, people might say this about our Nation:

that we had remembered the words of Micah and
renewed our search for humility, mercy, and justice;

that we had torn down the barriers that separated
those of different race and region and religion, and where there had been mistrust, built
unity, with a respect for diversity...

Jimmy CarterInaugural Address, January 20, 1977

Suspicion is the companion of mean souls, and the
bane of all good society. For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe, that it is the
will of the Almighty, that there should be diversity of religious opinions among us: It
affords a larger field for our Christian kindness.